Why Bush Has No Fear [Krauthammer]

Time Magazine ^ | November 22, 2004 | Charles Krauthammer

[Quilla]

There is an unusual feature to the second Bush Administration that is extraordinarily important but has been almost entirely overlooked. For the first time in a half-century, a two-term presidency will end without sending out its Vice President to seek a mandate for succession at the next election. Vice President Cheney will not run for the presidency, and everyone knows it. When these eight years are over, the Bush-Cheney Administration will simply close up shop.

[RockinRight]

McCain...

I hope not, ugh...

[sinkspur]

I'm not a McCain fan, either. But, he is pro-life, is someone who has appeal outside the GOP, and has the military credentials. He would likely be a one-termer, so he could pick the "heir apparent" as his VP.

[libsrscum]

"Late in Bush's term, it will mean terminal lame duckness, even more powerlessness than most late presidencies experience. Who, after all, will be around later to reward and punish? No one."

WE will help ensure GW Bush is NOT a lame duck. If we continue to remain active and hold everyone's feet to the fire, our cause will not fizzle out with the departure of President Bush after his term ends.

[TexasGreg]

No one, not FDR, not Ronald Reagan, not GWB, is indispensable.

Oh, I agree. The issue is not indispensability ... it's the advisability of a two-term rule. Two terms, in principle, are a nice idea, and naturally held until FDR. FDR had special circumstances in 1944.

[silverleaf]

Howdy stranger- What planet do you hail from?

If you can find "antisemitism" in this Krauthammer critique of "The Passion", then you must stay longer and study our language and culture in more detail..

From: Washington Post
Gibson's Blood Libel
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story.

Muslims have their story: God's revelation to the final prophet. Jews have their story: the covenant between man and God at Sinai.

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

Vatican II did not question the Gospels. It did not disavow its own central story. It took responsibility for it, and for the baleful history it had spawned. Recognizing that all words, even God's words, are necessarily subject to human interpretation, it ordered an understanding of those words that was most conducive to recognizing the humanity and innocence of the Jewish people.

The Vatican did that for good reason. The blood libel that this story affixed upon the Jewish people had led to countless Christian massacres of Jews and prepared Europe for the ultimate massacre -- 6 million Jews systematically murdered in six years -- in the heart, alas, of a Christian continent. It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow.

Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.

His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.

Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."

Spare us such love.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

[sinkspur]

Two terms, in principle, are a nice idea,

Two terms are the law of the land, and, I'd wager, 80% of the voting public believe they're a good idea. As do I, no matter who might want a third term.

[tom paine 2]

He was discussing the Kerry criticism of Fox News and quoted Karl Marx. evidently Marx recognized the value of controlling the cultural heights, which includes the media,universities, hollywood, the internet etc. Now, Fox News has disrupted the flow of propaganda, and the elites are very upset and are trying to regain the foothold on the national conversation.

[beyond the sea]

Right.

John Kennedy went after the Federal Reserve, Dulles, and the Vietnam War, I hear, and G.W. is going to go after other sacred cows now. I smell trouble.

[cicero's_son]

Howdy stranger- What planet do you hail from?...If you can find "antisemitism" in this Krauthammer critique of "The Passion", then you must stay longer and study our language and culture in more detail

Howdy stranger, indeed! Did you even bother to read my quesiton?

I'm not accusing Krauthammer of anti-semitism. I'm accusing him of anti-Christian (and specifically, anti-Catholic) bigotry.

So...thanks for posting his malicious hit piece on Gibson. It spares me the trouble of having to go find it in the archives.

[TexasGreg]

Two terms are the law of the land, and, I'd wager, 80% of the voting public believe they're a good idea. As do I, no matter who might want a third term.

1. Yes, it's the law of the land. So is the right to abortion. That doesn't make it right.

2. There's a fair-to-even chance that about 40-45% of the voting public would have voted Clinton to have a third term.

3. "Wanting" a third term is not the issue. The question I'm considering is the possibility that we might NEED a President to have a third term. The logic behind "not changing horses in the middle of a race," which governs the general mood behind re-electing a President in the middle of a war, comes to mind as a valid reason why the law against a third term (which would put a President over 9 years and 364 days) might not be as great a thing as most would like to think. If the Islamofacists are hitting us hard and fast, with nukes even, come 2007, do you really want to risk the nation to Hillarybeast? If not, then WHO will take up the mantle of the Presidency after Bush steps down??

[sinkspur]

The logic behind "not changing horses in the middle of a race," which governs the general mood behind re-electing a President in the middle of a war, comes to mind as a valid reason why the law against a third term (which would put a President over 9 years and 364 days) might not be as great a thing as most would like to think.

It's not a law; it's a constitutional amendment, which means that it would take another constitutional amendment to overturn it.

You're dreaming if you think 38 states would vote to allow unlimited terms for a president.

"Changing horses in the middle of a war" is no big deal; Harry Truman didn't miss a beat when he succeeded Roosevelt, though that was by necessity.

I don't want it, and I suspect most other Americans feel the same way. Two terms are enough.

[ops33]

Kraut, in German, actually means cabbage. The German word for German is Deutsch.

[ops33]

You picked the correct man, he will make a formidable candidate and an excellent President.

[RockinRight]

Did you sign the online petition?

[eternalperspective]

I'm sorry you couldn't see the wink I gave when making the comment.

[ops33]

I supposed you're right, I did miss the wink!!

[Arizona Carolyn]

What the libs will do is pull out the stops in '06 to try and stop him by changing congress.

[TexasGreg]

It's not a law; it's a constitutional amendment, which means that it would take another constitutional amendment to overturn it.

You were the one who used the term "law," friend. Yes, indeed, it IS the "law of the land" ... it IS a constitutional Amendment. So was Prohibition, and it was overturned. Many Dems were screaming about trying to overturn the 2-terms/10-year Amendment in order to push Clinton in 2000 ... remember? I'm convinced that the only reason they didn't actually try was that Clinton was Impeached.

You're dreaming if you think 38 states would vote to allow unlimited terms for a president.

I like to dream ... but, in fact, I'm not actually doing that in this case. I was just offering up a SUGGESTION, not thinking it would ever actually come to pass.

"Changing horses in the middle of a war" is no big deal; Harry Truman didn't miss a beat when he succeeded Roosevelt, though that was by necessity.

I know that. You know that. And we both also know that it wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been "by necessity" (i.e., if FDR hadn't died). I suppose that, if the situation were BAD enough that "changing horses" would be dangerous, perhaps Cheney could be convinced to run for election himself. Which brings up an interesting question: IF Bush were to die in office would Cheney run for election in his own right in 08? Or, would he just serve out Bush's term and step down?

I don't want it, and I suspect most other Americans feel the same way. Two terms are enough.

If you're correct, then why not let the electorate determine that in each election rather than barring the option altogether.

Oh ... heck ... I'm just arguing to hear myself argue. Perhaps I need to get a cup of coffee?

[streetpreacher]

Christian evangelicals will go for her though in a big way!

What leads you to that conclusion?